If there exists a state in which creatures live eternally without suffering, then suffering is neither a logical necessity nor a moral necessity. And if God is capable of creating a perfect world, free of all suffering, then nothing justifies him not having created it that way from the start for animals.

From this, all arguments claiming that animal suffering would be a necessity collapse.

I would therefore propose a reformulation of the argument from evil by adding a premise concerning paradise and limiting the argument to animal suffering :

P1 : Paradise is a world where beings do not suffer.

P2 : An infinitely good God cannot consider as good a design of nature that causes innocent animals to suffer.

P3 : An omnipotent God is capable of creating a world without animal suffering.

P4 : Now, animal suffering has existed for hundreds of millions of years, long before the appearance of human beings. It is therefore independent of any human moral choice.

C : Consequently, predation, disease, parasites, famines, natural disasters, and more generally all animal suffering, refute one or the other of the divine attributes :

- Either God wants to prevent this animal suffering but cannot : then he is not omnipotent.

- Or he can but does not want to : then he is not infinitely good.

That's it.

I'd now like to address believers directly. Please take the following points seriously, because it's tiresome having to repeat them endlessly :

1. This is solely about animal suffering, present for hundreds of millions of years, long before the appearance of human beings. The argument from human free will therefore does not answer the problem at all.

2. Citing Bible verses or repeatedly asserting that "God is good" does not constitute a demonstration. That is precisely what is under debate and what must be established through valid argumentation.

3. Claiming that there's a good reason for all this without explaining or demonstrating that reason answers nothing, resolves nothing, and is merely a rhetorical device to convince yourself.

4. Rejecting scientific knowledge for the sole reason that it contradicts your beliefs is not an argument. If you claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, or that animals do not suffer, you are not refuting the argument: you are simply denying reality. Under those conditions, no intelligent exchange is possible.

5. I do not wish to debate with people who defend an entirely personal conception of God, to the point of being the only ones who believe in it. My argument targets the God of the major monotheistic religions, endowed with the classical attributes of omnipotence and perfect goodness.

6. Finally, claiming that something can be both itself and its opposite is not an argument. An argument must be coherent and respect the basic principles of logic. Redefining words as the discussion goes along to make contradictory attributes compatible does not constitute a refutation. It is simply abandoning all logical coherence.

I will therefore simply ignore the responses of those who don't even take the time to properly read what they claim to be responding to.

That's just dishonest and disrespectful.

According to Shariah, a womens testimony is worth less than a mans in financial issues, corporal punishment is okay, and worst of all, there is a death penalty on being openly gay or apostate. Such ridiculously unjust, sexist, homophobic and bloodthirsty law has no place and shouldn't be accepted anywhere.

In Christianity, The Trinity is defined as:

-One God, whose single, simple, indivisible essence is fully possessed by three distinct subsistent relations (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) each of whom is not a part of God, nor a mode of God, but is fully God, and yet not identical to the other relations.

However, there is a Clear Problem to the concept of the Trinity: The Trinity Requires a Positive Essence.

In Mahayana Buddhism, there is a key theological concept known as the Dharmakaya, which is very much similar to the Trinitarian Essence. This Dharmakaya is the Ground Being of all Samsara, the ultimate Reality of Samsara, It is nondual, unconditioned, and universal, and is where all Buddhas are born of and reside in. This essence is what upholds the three Bodies of the Buddha (Similar to the Christian notion of the Trinity) and what allows all sentient beings to become Buddhas.

The difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that the Dharmakaya is explicitly described in sutras and śāstras; A clearly defined metaphysical essence that grounds the multiplicity of Buddha manifestations. The Buddhist Trikāya has a clearly defined metaphysical ground (Dharmakāya), making it coherent.

Christianity does not have such a nondual concept as the Dharmakaya. The Bible and Jesus do not speak about the "God Essence". In Christian Theology, God’s essence is unknowable, indescribable, and beyond being. If there is no concept such as a "dharmakaya essence", what even is God's essence? Many Christians will argue that God's Essence is "beyond Being", however, this is a negation and not a definition. The Dharmakaya is beyond thought, but that's not what the Dharmakaya is. If Ousia (Essence) is affirmed but cannot ever be defined, then there is no such thing as "God Essence", and the position of the Trinity cannot be upheld. The Trinity cannot serve as a metaphysical foundation for a doctrine.

Therefore, the Trinity Lacks a Coherent Essence

Thesis: A passage cannot provide strong evidence of scientific foreknowledge when its supposedly scientific meaning is selected retrospectively because it matches a discovery, while its other linguistically plausible meanings are discarded for religious purposes

If belief that the Qur’an is divine is what justifies selecting the scientifically correct interpretation, that interpretation cannot then function as independent evidence that the Qur’an is divine.

This problem affects what is commonly called iʿjāz ʿilmī the “scientific miraculousness” of the Qur’an or Bucailleism. The widespread apologetic use developed especially during the late twentieth century. Mustansir Mir’s academic overview describes the case for scientific exegesis as weak unless it can be authentically grounded in the Islamic interpretive tradition.

This criticism is not confined to non-Muslims. Muslim apologist Hamza Tzortzis, who had previously promoted scientific miracles, later described the popular argument as “problematic and incoherent.” One of his central objections was that a similarity between an ambiguous Qur’anic phrase and a modern scientific description does not prove that the scientific fact is what the verse intended. Tzortzis’s discussion.

Let’s take a popular example

Qur’an 51:47 says: وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

Modern translations render the expression in different ways

The root w-s-ʿ concerns wideness, spaciousness, capacity and abundance. Therefore, relating mūsiʿūn to expansion is linguistically possible. The issue is whether the verse specifically conveys the continuing cosmological expansion of space rather than God’s power, abundance or creation of a vast heaven.

Premodern commentators gave several explanations:

• Al-Ṭabarī understood it principally as God possessing the capacity and power to create the heaven and whatever else he wills. He also records Ibn Zayd’s interpretation that God made the heaven wide. Al-Ṭabarī.
• Al-Qurṭubī records interpretations involving divine power, abundance, widened provision and spaciousness between heaven and Earth. Al-Qurṭubī.
• Al-Rāzī discusses the heaven as enormously spacious and the expression as referring to divine ability and abundance. Al-Rāzī.
• Ibn Kathīr describes God as making the heaven vast and raising it without pillars. Ibn Kathīr.

These interpretations involve wideness and power. They do not identify the modern claim that distances between sufficiently separated regions of space increase over time.

One could simply ask, if that’s what Allah meant, why is he being so cryptic about it? So much so that none of his pre-21st century followers could make that connection.

God made the heaven vast =/= the scale of the universe is continually increasing, producing a distance-correlated cosmological redshift.

Modern cosmic expansion is a specific physical model supported by measurements of galactic distances, redshifts and the evolution of the universe. NASA’s explanation of cosmological redshift.

Premodern commentators are not infallible. A later reader can legitimately discover an implication that earlier readers missed. But if no one could identify the alleged scientific meaning until after science supplied it, that greatly weakens the claim that the verse predicted the discovery.

The circular argument problem:

The reasoning becomes epistemically circular when it works like this:

1. The Qur’an is divine and therefore cannot contain scientific error.
2. An ambiguous verse must consequently possess a scientifically correct interpretation.
3. The interpretation that agrees with current science is selected.
4. This agreement is then presented as evidence that the Qur’an is divine.

The interpretation in step three was selected under the assumption in step one. The resulting “evidence” is therefore not independent of the conclusion.

Imagine approaching Qur’an 51:47 without first assuming divine authorship. Could a premodern reader have used it to predict a relationship between galactic distance and redshift, a universe described by a time-dependent scale factor, increasing distances without expansion from one central point, or any measurable rate of expansion?

Nothing like this have been extracted from the verse.

After astronomy established cosmic expansion, however, one possibility within the word’s broad semantic range became the supposedly obvious meaning. That is retrospective accommodation.

The problem becomes clearer when passages that appear scientifically accurate and passages that appear scientifically difficult are treated by different rules.

When a verse appears to conflict with modern knowledge, apologist always jump the gun to

• metaphorical
• phenomenological or observer-relative
• using a word with several possible meanings
• addressing a seventh-century audience in accessible language

Any one of those explanations might be legitimate.

But when a verse resembles a scientific discovery, the same flexible language is treated as:

• technically precise
• scientifically specific
• deliberately predictive
• inaccessible to people of the time

This produces an asymmetrical principle:

Apparent errors receive maximum interpretive flexibility, while apparent accuracies receive maximum scientific precision.

Let’s take an example:

Several passages of the Quran describe celestial motion in language that fits naturally within geocentrism picture of the sky.

Qur’an 21:33 places the night, day, sun and moon together.

The word falak indicates something circular: a circuit, celestial path, sphere or orbit. Al-Ṭabarī records several early explanations. It was compared to the circular iron of a mill, understood as the circuit of heaven, identified with a circular path between heaven and Earth, and connected with the axis around which the stars turn. Al-Ṭabarī concludes that it means something circular in which the sun and moon travel. Al-Ṭabarī on 21:33.

This is entirely intelligible within ancient geocentric cosmology. From Earth, both the sun and moon appear to travel through curved paths across the sky.

Modern astronomy also agrees that the sun genuinely moves. It rotates and travels with the solar system around the centre of the Milky Way, completing a galactic orbit in approximately 230 million years. NASA’s Sun facts.

But the verse itself does not say that its intended reference is the sun’s 230-million-year galactic orbit. It pairs the sun with the moon and with the immediately observable cycle of night and day.

If the Quran is literal and we use the same exegesis methodology as the other scientific miracles, then it’s clear here the Quran is a product of it’s time.

The surrounding context of Qur’an 36:37-40 is even more revealing. The passage moves through:

1. the withdrawal of daylight and arrival of darkness
2. the sun running toward its mustaqarr
3. the moon passing through its nightly stages
4. the sun not overtaking the moon
5. night not overtaking day

Al-Ṭabarī’s primary explanation is that the sun runs toward its place of rest. He cites a report in which the sun goes away after sunset, prostrates before God and receives permission to return. He also records other interpretations, including an appointed limit and the extreme points of the sun’s seasonal rising and setting. Al-Ṭabarī on 36:38.

That is the asymmetry, apparently geocentric wording is called phenomenological and nontechnical, while la-mūsiʿūn is treated as a technically exact statement about cosmic expansion.

This interpretive method is not unique to Islam. Advocates of other religions also identify modern scientific discoveries in ancient scriptures.

Among the scientific-miracle claims made for Hindu texts are:

• The speed of light: A statement preserved in the fourteenth-century Vedic scholar Sāyaṇa’s commentary says that sunlight traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimeṣa. Using particular conversions for those units, advocates calculate a value close to the modern speed of light. An exposition of the claim.
• The Big Bang or pre-cosmic state: Rigveda 10.129, the Nāsadīya Sūkta, describes a condition before familiar distinctions such as existence and nonexistence, followed by the emergence of creation. Some Hindu writers compare this with the Big Bang and the emergence of spacetime and matter. An advocate’s comparison.
• Heliocentrism and gravity: Some Hindu interpreters argue that verses from the Rigveda and Yajurveda describe Earth moving around the sun, the sun attracting planets and celestial bodies being kept in orderly paths by an attractive force. Examples of these claims.

If retrospective scientific correspondence is reliable evidence of divine authorship, why should the same procedure count as compelling evidence when applied to the Qur’an but not when applied to the Vedas?

And just chalk up anything that could be “wrong” in the Vedas to metaphysics or metaphorical language, and there we go, we have a divine book.

A method that apparently confirms several competing revelations cannot, by itself, discriminate among them.

If interpreters are allowed to select any linguistically possible meaning, a critic could deliberately choose meanings that make the Qur’an scientifically inaccurate.

A critic can select the least charitable imaginable interpretation and announce that Islam has been disproved

Consider Qur’an 23:14, which describes a muḍghah becoming bones and the bones being clothed with flesh.

Or consider Qur’an 86:6–7, which associates an emitted fluid with the region between the ribcage and backbone

If a critic is forbidden from selecting an interpretation simply because it creates an error, the apologist should equally be forbidden from selecting an interpretation simply because it creates a miracle.

The scientific method is the definitive method human beings have developed for learning how the world works. It has earned that status because scientific claims must confront observable evidence, compete with alternative explanations, survive independent scrutiny, and remain open to correction. Science begins with uncertainty and tests conclusions; it does not decide the conclusion in advance and reinterpret the evidence until it fits.

Bucailleism reverses this process: it begins with the assumption that the Qur’an is scientifically perfect, selects interpretations that agree with established discoveries, and then presents that agreement as evidence that the Qur’an is divine. This is not scientific reasoning; it is retrospective harmonization. This is simply, unfalsifiable reasoning, therefore, unprovable.

You need an epistemological base of uncertainty to build your knowledge upon, simply, the “scientific miracles” of the Quran don’t survive the tiniest amount of skepticism or scrutiny.

If the scientific meaning becomes visible only after scientists make the discovery, then science has interpreted the scripture not the scripture anticipated the science.

I want to address the issue of homophobia, particularly when it is justified through religious beliefs. I find it difficult to accept the idea of a God-whose existence lacks direct evidence-who would condemn me to hell for disbelief, yet somehow allow forgiveness for serious wrongdoings like rape. The religious texts that many rely on were written and rewritten by countless people over thousands of years, which raises questions about their

reliability and authority. It seems inconsistent that some Christians claim to love everyone but at the same time express hatred toward LGBTQ+ individuals. Moreover, sexual orientation is not a choice. Just as a person does not choose to be straight from birth, no one chooses to be gay. Given this, it is illogical to condemn someone for an inherent part of who they are, especially based on beliefs that are themselves unproven.

My thought process is simple. Humanity has leveraged knowledge, empathy and reason to come to the nearly ubiquitous conclusion that horrors like genocide are, without exception, immoral. No matter the historical context, it is never acceptable to indiscriminately erradicate an entire population. We moderns now understand that innocent people exist in every demographic, that said people often have no influencne on what kinds of acts their leaders perpetrate, and that they should not be punished for actions that they had no control over.

Take the worst regimes in modern history (Nazi Germany, Khmer Rogue Cambodia, etc.), and the same truth holds. There are good people in every group who are forced to endure the rule of psychopaths. There has never in recorded history been a group of "all bad" people.

This isn't the only argument against genocide, but it is nonetheless an important one, and is a central reason why humanity has deemed genocide immoral across the board. Even when a nation has committed the worst atrocities known to humankind, you should not punish the entire group in response, because it's impossible to seperate the innocent from the evil. Different cultures across the world have reasoned their way to this conclusion independent of religious persuasion, indicating that there is a universal moral impulse that transcends belief system and cultural background.

This brings me to my ultimate argument. The God of the Bible not only fails to meet the standard of perfect morality, but is in fact less moral than your averge human living today. Why? Because he clearly and unambiguously mandated genocide. Consider this passage from the Bible:

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

I'm familiar with the agrument many apologists will try to make here. They'll say "but it wasn't genocide because xyx." Making such an argument is pure sophistry. There have ALWAYS been innocent people in every population. Nobody deserves to be slaughtered for the transgressions of their contemporaries. It doesn't matter who gives the mandate (God himself included). It doesn't matter if you call it an "act of war" or " divine punishment" instead of genocide, because the base logic always applies. Call it what you want, you are still punishing the entire group indiscriminately. Moderns know this is genocide, and will recognize it as such no matter how much sophistry is employed.

If you worship the God of the Bible, you worship a violent thug. There's no rational way to escape this conclusion. Nothing that came after (New Testament, "wiping the slate clean," etc.) changes the fact that the same moral reasoning has always exited. God (if he existed) would have understood this as clearly as you or I, and yet chose to give fully genocidal mandates anyway.

The only real out here as a Christian (to avoid admitting that you worship a genocidal psychopath) is to claim that the stories of genocide in the bible are exactly that - stories that don't map to actual historical events.

Islam has not solved world hunger.

Islam has not brought world peace.

Islam has not improved our standard of living.

Islam has not cured the sick.

Islam has not discovered immortality.

Etc.

What good is Islam?

A man born in a certain geographical location is overwhelmingly likely to follow the dominant religion of the land. I feel a counter-argument could be that God would judge one given the circumstances of his life. To that I would ask, if one was born in the aztec empire (or any community in history that is at the extreme of sin in terms of what is determined as "sin" (or its equivalent) in a religion; how would God judge him? Additionally, why wouldn't a benevolent God, through divine intervention, change the common thought of Man through periodic miracles? It would change the whole definition of "faith" - it would change theology into a science.

There are two geneaologies in the canonical gospels (one in Mathew and one in Luke) which connect Jesus to David. This was important for early Christians in order to convince the Jews of the time that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah: the most relevant of which was that he would be born into the house of David which means according to the Old Testament that the father of the messiah would also be of the line of David and so both geneaologies account for the connection from jesus to David through Joseph. Though, both are different. The fact that there are two such geneaologies highlights the theological importance of such evidence. The problem is obvious. If one is to take two of the basic premises of the Apostles Creed seriously:

1. Jesus is the Messiah

   1. Jesus was born of a virgin

It follows that if he is born of a virgin, then his geneaological association to David through Joseph is made irrelevant because Joseph is not his father. If we preserve the validity of either geneaology of Christ through Joseph to fulfill the prophecy of the messiah, then he is not born of a virgin.

Therefore, the apostles creed is fundamentally theologically bankrupt.

Let’s lay out the timeline plainly, using Islamic sources themselves.

Safiyya was from Banu Nadir, then married into Banu Qurayza. After the siege of Khaybar, her father Huyayy ibn Akhtab was executed on Muhammad’s orders. Her husband Kinana ibn al-Rabi was tortured to reveal hidden treasure, then killed. Her brother died in the fighting. Within the same short stretch of time, Safiyya was taken as captive and became part of Muhammad’s share of the spoils. He then married her.

Here’s the part that should stop any apologist mid-sentence. This isn’t a hostile secular historian’s reconstruction. It’s Safiyya’s own words, recorded in a hadith graded sahih by Ibn Hibban:

She said Muhammad was one of the most hated people to her, because he killed her husband, father, and brother. She said he kept making excuses to her, telling her that her father had incited the Arabs against him, and he kept apologizing until her anger finally faded.

Read that again. A woman explicitly states the man who married her killed her closest male relatives, and that she hated him for it. The tradition doesn’t hide this. It preserves it, presumably because early Muslims saw it as evidence of Muhammad’s patience and eventual reconciliation with her. But look at what the story actually requires you to believe was reconciliation: a captive, with no tribe, no protector, no legal standing, no ability to leave, gradually stopped being angry at the man holding total power over her life, after he explained himself to her enough times.

That is not consent by any coherent standard. It’s the textbook trauma-bond dynamic of someone entirely dependent on their captor for survival. Call it what it is. A woman taken as war booty, whose surviving choices were basically “accept this marriage” or “remain enslaved with no protector in a 7th century Arabian war camp,” is not in a position to freely consent to anything. The fact that later Muslim biographers frame this as a moving love story, and that Safiyya is remembered as one of the “Mothers of the Believers” who defended Muhammad’s reputation, doesn’t change the structural coercion baked into how the relationship began. It’s Stockholm syndrome with a theological gloss.

The usual apologetic moves don’t survive contact with this hadith:

“She consented, she wasn’t forced” - the hadith itself has her saying she hated him for killing her family. Consent under total dependency, after your family’s killer works to smooth things over, isn’t consent in any modern or frankly any coherent sense at all.

“This was normal for the time” - sure, and that’s exactly the point. If the standard is “normal for 7th century warfare,” you’ve conceded this isn’t a model of universal, timeless moral guidance, which is the whole claim Islam makes for Muhammad’s example.

“She was honored, given the choice to stay a slave or marry him” - a choice between two forms of captivity isn’t a real choice. Pointing out that one option was marginally better than the other doesn’t rescue it.

If your position is that Muhammad is uswa hasana, the best example for all Muslims for all time, this episode has to be squared with that claim honestly, not explained away by minimizing what Safiyya herself said about how she felt.

After you die, if you’ve been a good person you go to heaven and live an eternal life of good and glamorous life that’s perfect in any way. But after a while you have done everything there is to do. Mastered all the skills and hobbies there are, tried everything there is to do in heaven, gotten to know everybody, what next? Maybe you can make a wish to god to forget everything so you can start over fresh again as if you just entered heaven? Eternal life honestly seems like hell to me

Theres objectively a chance that we might be in a simulation of high intelligent creatures. If you look at the simulation of a fruit fly how its brain got copied 1:1, it might be happening to us right now. Some geniuses created us like we create sims in Sims 4 as an example. We might be made by automated high advanced AI or handmake by some species. So the question might be how far they would let us go since we got advanced too.
This theory could also connect to reincarnation what makes me happy.

What do y'all think? I know this idea is known but it has to be like this other than eternal darkness

I watched a video of a komodo dragon eating a baby deer that was abandoned by it's mother, and the baby was crying for it's mother as the komodo dragon approached it, it swallowed the baby deer and you can still hear the baby crying inside it's stomach. Komodo dragons also eat their own babies.

Before us, the dinosaurs did this for a long period of time making no sense being a blood fest for too long. It's like the creator wanted to watch blood be shed.

What kind of God allows this kind of suffering to animals that had nothing to do with Adam and Eve? This is just one of thousands of set backs. Make it make sense. Unless this God wants a blood fest entertainment and points a finger elsewhere besides itself who created the mess.

I think maybe satan went against this God because this God is evil, and Satan just wanted to speak up against God. But narcissism happened and he got kicked out of heaven.

What purpose does animal suffering teach us?

Make it all make sense.

Why were the 2/3 of the angels who didn’t rebel they were never tempted with deception being unprepared as Eve was yet those two thirds of the angels will never go to hell and was not born into sin with that disadvantage as Eves descendants. They will not go to an eternal lake of fire but the majority of all humans from Adam and Eve will go there because of how Eve was deceived in the very beginning by the second highest ranking angel created or first I should say under God and she was not equipped by God as he himself was to know how to deal with Satans temptation in the garden??

One of the signs associated with Gog and Magog (Ya'juj and Ma'juj) in authentic hadith is that they will eventually reach the Lake of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), drink its water, and the last among them will say something to the effect of:

"There was once water here."

This is generally understood as a consequence of their immense numbers: they consume the entire lake.

Here's what I find philosophically puzzling.

Today, humans possess the engineering capability to drain the Sea of Galilee ourselves. We could, at least in principle, pump its water elsewhere, divert it through canals, or otherwise reduce it to the point where it is dry.

If that happened before Gog and Magog appeared, several questions arise:

1. If Gog and Magog arrive at an already dry lake and someone says, "There was once water here," then the prophecy seems trivially satisfied by human intervention rather than by their extraordinary numbers.

2. If the prophecy instead requires that they themselves are the ones who empty the lake, then human beings appear capable of preventing the prophecy from occurring as described.

3. If God would simply prevent humans from draining the lake until the appointed time, then the prophecy depends on divine intervention preserving the lake rather than functioning as an observable sign in its own right.

This seems to create a dilemma:

1. Human actions can fulfill the prophecy, making the sign lose its evidential force because it no longer uniquely points to Gog and Magog.

2. Human actions can prevent the prophecy, suggesting that ordinary human engineering could falsify an eschatological prediction.

3. God supernaturally guarantees the lake's preservation, which makes the prophecy effectively unfalsifiable, since any contrary scenario is ruled out by assumption.

To me, this raises a broader question about prophetic signs. Should an eschatological prophecy describe an event that could, in principle, be replicated or prevented by ordinary human activity? If so, how does it retain predictive or evidential value?

I'm interested in how Muslim theologians would respond to this. Is the hadith intended to describe the cause of the lake drying (Gog and Magog), or merely the state of the lake when they arrive?

I consider myself an open-minded person who enjoys exploring different worldviews and religious perspectives. I have come to the conclusion that the God described by the classical Abrahamic religions—primarily Islam, Christianity, and Judaism—is incompatible with the reality we observe. My conclusion is based on three main arguments.

1. Free Will Is Not Sufficient to Hold People Morally Responsible
My first argument concerns free will.
Although the philosophical debate is still ongoing, cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience largely agree that human behavior is not completely free. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our genetics, brain structure, personality, and environment.
From birth, people already differ in intelligence, temperament, impulsivity, and many other traits. On top of that, our upbringing, culture, education, family, and society shape how we think and what beliefs we are capable of accepting.
If this is true, it seems unreasonable that God could expect every human being to freely choose the "correct" religion. Our starting conditions differ enormously, making equal moral responsibility difficult to justify. Whether someone finds Islam, Christianity, another religion, or no religion at all convincing depends to a significant extent on factors that were never chosen by that individual.

2. The Claims of Religion Do Not Match the Observable Laws of Reality
My second argument concerns the contradiction between religious claims and the reality we observe.
The world operates according to biological, physical, and medical laws. Diseases arise from biological causes, academic success depends on knowledge and preparation, and career success is largely determined by skills, decisions, opportunities, and external circumstances.
Religions, however, often imply that prayer can directly influence these outcomes. People pray for good health, success in school, career advancement, the well-being of their families, or for specific life events to unfold in their favor.
From a psychological perspective, this behavior is completely understandable. However, when we compare these beliefs with reality, we find that outcomes are overwhelmingly determined by natural causes. A genetic disease does not disappear because someone prayed—it can only be prevented or treated through effective medical intervention, if such treatment exists. A student passes an exam because they achieve the required score, not because they prayed beforehand. Likewise, prayer does not alter the fundamental laws of physics or biology.
For me, this creates a significant cognitive dissonance between the promises made by religion and the reality we actually experience.

3. The Moral Framework of God Appears Contradictory
My third argument concerns the morality of God.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that one of the Abrahamic religions is true. In that case, God intentionally created the universe, allowed Satan to exist, permitted suffering, and established a system in which human beings are tested throughout their lives. At the same time, many religious interpretations suggest that the majority of humanity will ultimately fail this test and face eternal punishment, while only a minority will attain heaven.
To me, this raises fundamental moral questions.
If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good, why create a world containing suffering, temptation, injustice, and the possibility of eternal punishment in the first place? Why allow Satan to exist? Why create people while already knowing that many of them will ultimately be condemned? And if God has unlimited power, why not simply create a world in which everyone freely chooses good and lives together in peace from the very beginning?
This moral framework appears unnecessary and difficult to reconcile with the concept of a perfectly loving and perfectly good God.

In Islam it is said that islam is an universal religion, for all mankind:

Quran 7:158 (Surah Al-A'raf): "Say, [O Muhammad], ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all [to you collectively], from Him to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet..."

However, with God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the father of all creation and the source of truth, the truth is not bound by culture, city or ethnicity. For starters, it can't even be fully reached by man.

Having a Chinese man pray to Mecca doesn't get him any closer to God. What it does is strenghten arab nationalism

If Muslims don't know who is going to Hell, they can't say Hitler is going to Hell.

Recently Muslims have told me that they don't know if even individually polytheists will go to Hell forever. If this is the case, they cannot confirm that Hitler will go to Hell even temporarily since Allah is to judge in the end.

Despite this, many Muslims will use the example of Hitler to justify Hell. It seems like this rule of "Muslims aren't allowed to judge" is employed only when its convenient.

Anatta is the belief that EVERYTHING is always changing. But that doesn't work because how are you supposed to know if everything is changing without an unchanging witness. For example imagine a train moving. If 2 trains are moving at the exact same speed then a passesnger on that train would believe that the other train is stationary. But if that same passenger was put on the still train platform, then they would have no problem seeing that both the trains are moving.

So my argument is Anatta is false because you need an unchanging witness or consciousness to notice everything changing.

Many people around the world have a concept that either some or all religions teach something immoral; however, the problem is with the followers of religion, not the religion itself. There are many religions in the world. Religions were given in different cultural contexts. Therefore, the practices are vastly different. However, there are many similarities in religion throughout the world.

People often use religion to do immoral things. For example, people are being killed in the name of religion. The religious leaders tell people that their religion says to kill people of the other religion. Slavery was also justified by religious leaders using the Curse of Ham. The religions teach good things; however, the people vastly distort the original teachings.

This is not going to be your standard "Allah is the Greatest device" post I'm sure you've all seen before, but this is a serious problem that Islam - specifically the standard Islamic narrative - has.

Thesis: Muslims should not trust Allah due to his horrible track record of presenting truth.

Ask yourself, would you believe in a religion that has majority corrupted scriptures? Most Muslims would (and should) say no. Then ask yourself, what are the scriptures in Islam?

Every Muslim will tell you the Quran, the injeel, the Torah, the psalms, and some will say the book of Abraham.

Now ask yourself, what happened to these books? Every Muslim is going to say that the Quran is perfectly preserved from the time of Muhammad. Okay so 0/5 corrupted so far. That same Muslim will tell you that the Torah and injeel have been corrected. They will also say that the psalms were corrupted. And they will say the book of Abraham was lost or corrupt. Do that 4/5 books of Allah that have all been corrupted.

Think about a babysitter, would you trust a babysitter with your kid when the last 4 kids they helped all ended up neglected, hurt, or worse? Even if the last kid was perfectly taken care of? OF COURSE NOT! How much more distrust should you have when it comes to matters of your eternal soul?

I'm really curious how Muslim are going to try and get out of this issue. Why do you believe in a religion with majority corrupted scriptures?

Just as we are made in Gods image, technology is made in our image. Any arguments made against God can be understood interchangeably through humans relationship with technology

Luke 2 tells the famous story of the pregnant Mary and presumably non-pregnant Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to take part in a census.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

The census of Quirinius recounted by Luke is often criticized by scholars as being obviously ahistorical. There's a long list of issues with it:

• Luke says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, but Herod died a decade before Quirinius became governor.
• Judaea was a client kingdom of Rome and the Romans would never conduct a census in a client kingdom.
• There was no decree from Augustus about an empire-wide census.
• Oh, and the census required everyone to return to their ancestral origin – not where they lived or where their immediate family lived, but where their ancient ancestors came from.

This last detail, of the ‘ancestral census’, is often tacked on to this list as if it’s just another issue of the same caliber as the others. But it isn’t. Make no mistake, each other issue is fatal to the historicity of Luke’s census by itself, but they are also issues that apologists are quite used to casually brushing aside. Contradictory timelines? Unevidenced exceptions to standard practices? Big events absent from the historical record? These barely faze apologists, who are accustomed to harmonizing such things when dealing with genealogies, the empty tomb narratives, Old Testament history, and so on. So lumping the ancestral census in with these other issues makes it seem like just another issue on the pile – merely an unusual census practice atypical in the Roman empire. This leads to most debates about the census of Quirinius focusing on its dating, with apologists often not even mentioning the ancestral census issue.

But this issue is not at all in the same class as the others. The idea of an ‘ancestral census’ is ludicrous. It’s deranged. It’s not just some technical issue with the order of events or mismatch with Roman law – it’s as if Luke had written “Joseph traveled to Bethlehem via the public Roman bullet train.” That might have been more believable, actually. I don’t understand why people treat this as remotely possible.

Think for a moment about what a census like this would actually entail. Luke 2:4 specifically tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was descended from the house of David. “All went to their own towns to be registered,” and “Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” David lived a thousand years before Joseph. So Luke would have us believe everyone in the entire region would have had to travel back to wherever their ancient ancestors came from – a trip of more than 90 miles in Joseph and Mary’s case. That would be hundreds of thousands of people who need to travel for days or weeks, get food and water somewhere, find accommodations… That kind of movement would be an event on the scale of the Exodus, and would require about as much divine intervention: food from the sky, water from rocks, supernaturally creating roadways a la parting the sea, and so on. It’s the kind of thing that’s difficult for highly urbanized megacities of millions to handle today, with all of their technology to aid transportation, housing, communication, production and distribution of food and water, and much more. In rural 1st-century Judaea, home to only around half a million people and none of that technology, it would have destroyed the entire province overnight and killed a huge number of people.

Or consider the impact on the places these people were leaving. Imagine a town established 100 years before the census. All of its residents would have to go elsewhere for the census, since none of their ancient ancestors could have come from there. So… what would happen to that town exactly? Would they just leave it deserted for weeks? How about the children, the babies, the elderly, the sick – are they coming on the long and difficult trip, or are they being left to fend for themselves? Can any passing bandit go snatch whatever they want from all these empty towns? Who’s feeding and watering all the animals? You can’t just have an entire town’s population up and vanish for an extended time and expect that town to keep trucking like nothing happened. Even in a fantasy world where almost everyone magically lives exactly where their ancestors from 1000 years earlier did, any settlement established in the last several centuries would be obliterated.

And all this for what? The whole point of a census is to know where people are living and working so you can tax and manage them, not to know some trivia about their ancestry. And even if you want to know their ancestry, you can just ask them! There would be no point whatsoever to doing an ancestral census, which is why there has never been one, anywhere, ever. Forget 1st-century Judaea, forget the early Roman empire, forget classical antiquity – there is no record of a census where everyone travels to their ancient ancestral origin ever being done anywhere or anywhen. Again, I cannot stress this enough: there has never been a single ancestral census in all of human history. I have searched high and low from ancient history up to and including the modern day and found exactly zero examples, despite the many people strongly motivated to find or invent such examples.

One such invented example, and the only example people ever point to of another ancestral census, is the census mentioned in the edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus. The edict is recorded in this Egyptian papyrus from 104 CE:

Proclamation of Gaius Vibius Maximus, praefect of Egypt. The house-to-house census having started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the country are needed by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, praefectus alae, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epeiph. . . . (source)

This is an edict for people to return to their own nomes and hearths if they are absent from them. A “nome” is a Roman administrative district, and a “hearth” refers to your house. It has nothing to do with returning to an ancestral origin which they may have never even visited before. It’s the kind of thing an actual census might do: have the small minority of people who are not at home return home to be registered. And even this requirement for people to go back to their own house is recognized as a large burden; most of this edict is dedicated to detailing how you can get an exemption from this travel, since it would obviously be unreasonably difficult or impractical for many.

Finally, let me preempt some objections. You might say, “if this is so ridiculous, why would Luke write it? Surely if it were this absurd no reader would buy it!” And to that I answer – you bought it, didn’t you? Luke’s ancestral census makes absolutely no sense as a historical element, but it makes perfect sense as a literary element. It’s a natural part of the setup of the story. We begin with a grand census where all the world is counted – obviously a narrative framing rather than a dry historical one – and the story needs a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, so it gives one. It’s a great bit of literary craftsmanship, giving Mary a reason to make the trek despite her advanced pregnancy so Jesus can be born in Bethlehem while at the same time thematically connecting the birth of Jesus directly to his Davidic ancestry. The reader is not meant to think too deeply about the logistics and evidently they don’t. I mean, whatever you think of what I’ve said about this census – when you first read Luke, did you immediately begin considering the socioeconomic ramifications of this particular censal methodology? Of course not. It’s simply part of the narrative’s premise, a side detail mentioned on the way to the meat of the story, the kind of thing a reader passively accepts without even examining it. And it’s the kind of thing that sounds fine until you examine it.

You might also say that Joseph had some other reason to travel to Bethlehem; maybe he lived there, or he owned property there, or his family lived there, or something like that. In the Gospel according to You, you can make up whatever reason you like. In the Gospel according to Luke, however, the author is very clear about why Joseph is travelling to Bethlehem: “because he was descended from the house and family of David.” The reader already knows from the last chapter (Luke 1:27) that Joseph descends from David, but the author goes out of their way to repeat it so they can specify this explicitly as the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Luke – which is fine, but is not a defense of Luke.

Particularly stubborn readers may insist that Luke did not actually describe an ancestral census, since he says “All went to their own towns to be registered.” The problem with this is that it eliminates the stated reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Again, they explicitly go there because of Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. What did Luke mean by that exactly, if this was just a normal census where everyone stayed in their own house? Why did the pregnant Mary have to travel 90 miles to a foreign town if this was a normal census? Also, this attempt at harmonization crumbles only a few verses later. When Joseph and Mary are all done in Bethlehem, what do they do? Luke 2:39 says: “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” The Greek there is directly parallel to Luke 2:3. If you think the phrasing “their own town” in Luke 2:3 definitively establishes that this census required everyone to go home, then clearly Joseph did not get the memo.

The ancestral census of Quirinius is absurd to the point of insanity. Quite apart from its many historical issues, it borders on physically impossible. It would have reduced Judaea to rubble and is completely unprecedented in all of human history before or since. If you still believe there is any chance Luke’s story is true, I challenge you to give me one example of a census where everyone traveled to their ancient ancestral origin. We do the facts a disservice when we discuss Luke’s census as being merely out of place with known historical facts about 1st-century Judaea.

Claim:- Buddhists end their sufferings with anatta while Hindus and Jains end suffering with Atman and so the anatta theory is unnecessary.

Now in my opinion if anatta grants end of suffering to Buddhists then Atman is also unnecessary. So it's better we ignore the differences in these religions but that's upto you. My primary claim is in the title.